CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 octobre 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 13 October 1986, the following members being present:                         MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                           J. A. FROWEIN                           F. ERMACORA                           E. BUSUTTIL                           G. JÖRUNDSSON                           G. TENEKIDES                           S. TRECHSEL                           B. KIERNAN                           A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                           A. WEITZEL                           J. C. SOYER                           H. G. SCHERMERS                           H. DANELIUS                           G. BATLINER                           J. CAMPINOS                       Mrs G. H. THUNE                       Sir Basil HALL                       Mr. F. MARTINEZ                         Mr. H. C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 17 July 1985 by W.K. against Sweden and registered on 24 September 1985 under file No. 11762/85;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The facts of the case, as they appear from the applicant's submissions, may be summarised as follows:   The applicant is a Swedish citizen born in 1929 and resident at Gunnebobruk.   He is a consultant by profession.   Alleging that he was unemployed, the applicant asked for unemployment benefits under the Act on Cash Labour Market Support (lagen om kontant arbetsmarknadsstöd).   His request was refused by the County Employment Office (länsarbetsnämnden) of Kalmar on 26 November 1982.   The applicant appealed to the National Labour Market Board (arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen) which in a decision of 23 March 1983 rejected the appeal with the following reasons:   "According to Section 4 of the Act on Cash Labour Market Support a businessman is considered as unemployed if he no longer engages in any activity in the business except such as is merely of an occasional character.   In the Governmental Bill 1973:56 concerning the Act on Unemployment Insurance etc. the responsible Minister stated inter alia that in companies where an employee or his family owns the major part of the shares, such an employee is in practice to be regarded as a private businessman (egen företagare).   Among the documents of the case it appears from the minutes of a board meeting of 4 November 1982 that you have transferred your shares of SKAFTET KRAFTVERK AB (a limited liability company) to your wife.   It has further appeared that you are still registered in the official register of limited liability companies as competent to sign on behalf of the company.   For these reasons, the National Labour Market Board finds that your personal activity in the company has not ceased and that you are to be considered as a private businessman.   According to the Act you are not to be regarded as unemployed and consequently no support can therefore be paid.   The Board finds no reason to amend the decision of the County Employment Office."   The applicant appealed to the Supreme Insurance Court (försäkringsöverdomstolen).   On 13 February 1985, the Court decided to transmit the case-file to the National Labour Market Board for supplementary investigation and for a possible opinion.   The reply of the Board was communicated to the applicant who submitted his final statement by a letter of 4 April 1985.   In the meantime the applicant had made a new application for unemployment benefits.   This application was refused by the County Employment Office on 10 December 1984.   The applicant's appeal was rejected by the National Labour Market Board on 3 March 1985.   The applicant submitted a further appeal to the Supreme Insurance Court.   On 2 July 1985 the Supreme Insurance Court rejected the applicant's two appeals.   COMPLAINTS   1. The applicant complains that contrary to Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention he has not had an impartial hearing before the Supreme Insurance Court.   He submits in particular that the Court was partial since it requested his opponent, the National Labour Market Board, to make an inquiry in the case.   2. The applicant also complains that he has had no effective remedy as guaranteed by Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention since he does not know what has happened before the Supreme Insurance Court, which, in the applicant's opinion, has not examined the applicant's submissions.   3. The applicant submits that the only reason for refusing him unemployment benefits was that he was married to his wife.   He alleges that this is discrimination contrary to Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention as well as a breach of Article 12 (art. 12) of the Convention.   4. Finally, the applicant complains that his personal identity number was used as the case-file number.   He submits that one of the digits in this number indicates that he is of other than Swedish origin.   He submits that this practice is in violation of Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention.   THE LAW   1. The applicant complains that he was refused unemployment benefits.   He also complains about the procedure which was applied when his applications for unemployment benefits were refused.   The applicant has invoked Articles 6, 12, 13 and 14 (art. 6, art. 12, art. 13, art. 14) of the Convention.   2. The Commission first observes that the Convention does not as such guarantee any right to unemployment benefits, and there is no provision in the Convention from which such a right could be derived.   Insofar as the application relates to the refusal to grant the applicant unemployment benefits, it follows that the application falls outside the scope of the Convention, and must therefore be rejected under Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.   3. The applicant also complains that he did not receive an impartial hearing before the Social Insurance Court and that Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention has therefore been violated. Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) first sentence reads:   "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."   The Commission considers that it can leave open the question of the applicability of Article 6 (art. 6), i.e. the question whether the determination of the applicant's right to unemployment benefits related to his "civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 (art. 6).   Even assuming that Article 6 (art. 6) was applicable to the proceedings before the Supreme Insurance Court, the Commission finds that the fact that the Court asked the National Labour Market Board to make an inquiry in the case, and to state its views, does not raise an issue under Article 6 (art. 6) in view of the fact that these views were communicated to the applicant, who then submitted his final statement. The practice that the appeal instance requests further investigation or an opinion from the authority which has made the decision appealed against, is not in itself an objectionable procedure.   This practice, as applied in the applicant's case, cannot be considered to have made the Supreme Insurance Court lack impartiality within the meaning of Article 6 (art. 6) or have resulted in any lack of equality of arms, as guaranteed by Article 6 (art. 6).   It follows that in this respect the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.   4. Finally, as regards the applicant's complaints about the use of personal identity numbers, the Commission observes that there is no provision in the Convention which as such expressly or implicitly prohibits the use of such numbers.   The question which may arise is whether the manner in which personal identity numbers are used infringes any Articles of the Convention.   The Commission has previously held that data protection is an issue which falls within the scope of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention and that it is conceivable that the use of personal identity numbers as a way of storing data in different registers and the matching of such registers could raise an issue under Article 8 (art. 8) (see No. 10473/83, Dec. 11.12.85, unpublished).   The Commission considers however that there is nothing in the applicant's submissions which could raise an issue under Articles 8 (art. 8) or 14 (art. 14) of the Convention.   It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Commission   DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE   Secretary to the Commission          President of the Commission   (H. C. KRÜGER)                       (C. A. NØRGAARD)